Legislators are creating solutions for a persisting problem: civil asset forfeiture. This practice jeopardizes the financial security of law-abiding citizens by allowing law enforcement to confiscate their property. Americans for Tax Reform joins six other conservative organizations in a coalition letter that addresses the problem of civil asset forfeiture:

“Civil forfeiture is a process that allows property to be seized and forfeited without ever charging, much less convicting, its owner of a crime. Often, these seizures are justified by mere suspicion with little, if any, actual evidence tying property or currency to an illicit act. At this point, property owners must navigate a tortuous, skewed legal landscape that requires them to prove, in essence, their own innocence.”

In opposition to this policy, Americans for Tax Reform supports current efforts moving through the House of Representatives such as the DUE PROCESS Act and RESPECT Act. These proposals would increase the system’s transparency and raise the burden of proof to a “clear and convincing” standard, and make it harder for the IRS to steal money from innocent people’s bank accounts.

Authored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the DUE PROCESS Act is especially keen on protecting accused citizens. The bill focuses on the government’s responsibility to prove wrong doing and enforces recent policy changes at the Internal Revenue Service that would restrict their ability to seize assets without clear evidence.

The Respect Act, introduced by Rep. Pete Roscam (R-Ill.) speeds up the recovery process for assets taken when they have no relation to the allegations.

Ultimately, the federal government should be working towards criminal asset forfeiture procedures to protect Americans that have not been convicted of, or even charged with, any crime.

The legislation moving through Congress does not serve as a final solution, but certainly takes a step in the right direction. ATR encourages lawmakers to support these bills and other smart-on-crime approaches that defend our constitutional values by improving or enhancing existing statutes, while also saving money.

While Republican lawmakers promised repeal of Obamacare – including repeal of the one trillion dollars in new or higher taxes – it remains unclear when, or if this will be achieved. The Senate failed to pass legislation last month, and lawmakers have said they will move on to tax reform in the second half of the year.

Even as Congress and the administration pivots away from healthcare, there remains some issues that must be addressed this year, like ensuring that the Obamacare health insurance tax and medical device tax do not go into effect.

Absent full repeal, Congress must use the remaining months of the year to delay the health insurance tax and medical device tax so they do not go into effect in 2018 and increase taxes. American families, seniors, and businesses have already been hurt by the failure to repeal Obamacare’s taxes. The last thing taxpayers need is even more taxes to go into effect.

If the health insurance tax is allowed to go into effect in 2018, it will directly hurt middle and low-income families. In total, the tax hits 11 million households that purchase through the individual insurance market, and 23 million households covered through their jobs. Next year alone, the tax will total $14.3 billion, and over a decade the tax totals roughly $150 billion in higher taxes.

Half of the tax is paid by those earning less than $50,000 a year and it will increase premiums by $5,000 per family over the next decade according to research by the American Action Forum.

Not only does it harm American families, the health insurance tax is devastating to small businesses. As many as 1.7 million small businesses would be directly impacted and the tax could cost up to 286,000 in new jobs and small $33 billion in lost sales by 2023, according to the National Federation of Independent Business.

While it is imposed on a narrower base of taxpayers, the 2.3 percent medical device tax is similarly harmful to small businesses. Medical device makers contribute $150 billion to the U.S. economy, and many are small businesses. Of the over 6,500 medical device companies in America, 80 percent have fewer than 50 employees.

If Congress fails to prevent this tax increase from going into effect, it could lead to more than 25,000 lost jobs by 2021. Over the next decade, this excise tax is projected to increase taxes by $30 billion.

Small businesses account for half of all jobs in the US and two-thirds of new jobs in recent decades, so the health insurance tax and medical device tax mean businesses across the country can spend less on investing in new equipment, hiring new workers, or providing higher wages.

Unless Congress acts, both tax increases will go into effect on January 1, 2018, leading to higher premiums and higher costs for middle class families, seniors, and small businesses.

Conservatives campaigned on lower taxes. The last thing that voters expect is for a tax increase to go into effect under the watch of GOP lawmakers.

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) I write to express ATR’s strong support for using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) recently published rule relating to arbitration agreements.

The CFPB’s arbitration rule would do little in the way of benefiting American consumers, and instead would result in a flood of class-action lawsuits putting more money in the pockets of trial lawyers. The arbitration rule would cost consumers billions and lead to a projected 6,000 class action lawsuits every five years.

According to the CFPB’s own study, average payouts to consumers after litigation was less than $2.00 per person, which is significantly lower that the amount awarded during the arbitration process. The same study found that only 20 percent of class-action lawsuits are approved and among those the average wait time for a settlement was roughly three years. This is compared to the arbitration process where the wait time is an average of only 6.9 months.

I urge you and your colleagues in Congress to support S.J. Res. 47 introduced by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), which would use the authority granted under the Congressional Review Act to reverse the CFPB’s arbitration rule.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) joined President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan at the White House this week to announce that Wisconsin has been selected as the location for Taiwan-based Foxconn’s first U.S. manufacturing plant. Foxconn, the world’s largest electronic manufacturing services provider, will invest $10 billion in a new facility, most likely in Racine or Kenosha county, that could create up to 13,000 jobs in the Badger State with an average salary of $53,875 plus benefits

The deal owes a lot of its success to reforms signed into law by Gov. Walker that have made Wisconsin more attractive to job creation and investment. Wisconsin beat out six other states for the Foxconn factory, which will produce liquid crystal display (LCD) screens. One of the states Foxconn passed over is Illinois, Wisconsin’s neighbor, and a state that is moving in the opposite direction from Wisconsin when it comes to fiscal policy. Illinois lawmakers have repeatedly raised taxes in recent years, imposing a massive 32% income tax hike earlier this month. Meanwhile, Illinois Speaker Mike Madigan and his caucus henchmen refuse to make structural spending reforms that are necessary to rectify the unsustainable growth of state spending or the state’s $130 billion unfunded pension liability.

Actions have consequences, so it should come as no shock that Illinois, given recent policy developments in Springfield, didn’t win this deal. While Illinois has become a less hospitable place to do business in recent years, Wisconsin has enacted reforms that provide tax relief, spending restraint, and regulatory reform, creating an environment that attracts investment and jobs from companies like Foxconn. Some of the top achievements under Gov. Walker include the following:

Other states, like Illinois, will continue to lose businesses, residents, and income if they keep stifling growth with higher taxes, heavy regulations, and a structural budget imbalance. Wisconsin, meanwhile, proves how conservative policy reforms that reduce taxes, rein in spending, and reform entitlements translate into economic growth and job creation.

Today ATR President Grover Norquist released the following comments regarding the Joint Statement on Tax Reform:

“The joint White House, Senate, and House statement proves that tax reform is on schedule for 2017. Congress and the administration are in agreement on a tax reform plan that includes tax cuts and simplification for individuals, lower rates for all businesses, full business expensing, and territoriality. This bold plan is the key to unlocking at least three percent economic growth, creating millions more jobs, and giving American families lower taxes and more take-home pay.”

As the U.S. Senate continues to move through the process of passing healthcare reform, recent media reports have suggested lawmakers will move forward with a “skinny repeal” bill that contains a limited number of reforms.

Should the Senate go down this path, it is crucial that they include repeal of Obamacare’s health insurance tax.

Repeal of the Obamacare health insurance tax is critical because it is set to go into effect in 2018. If this is allowed to happen, middle class families and small businesses will be hurt with another tax increase. Ideally, the tax should be fully repealed, but if lawmakers are unable to agree on this, they should at least delay the date at which the health insurance tax is set to go into effect.

If the Senate fails to delay this tax, it will total $14.3 billion next year. Over the next decade, the health insurance tax totals $145 billion.

Repeal means strong tax relief for middle and low-income families. According to the American Action Forum, the tax increases premiums by as much as $5,000 over a decade. In total, the tax hits 11 million households that purchase through the individual insurance market, and 23 million households covered through their jobs. Roughly half of the tax is paid by those earning less than $50,000 a year.

In addition, the tax is devastating to small businesses. It is estimated to directly impact as many as 1.7 million small businesses. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates the tax could cost up to 286,000 in new jobs and cost small businesses $33 billion in lost sales by 2023.

Small businesses account for half of all jobs in the US and two-thirds of new jobs in recent decades, so this tax will mean businesses across the country can spend less on investing in new equipment, hiring new workers, or providing higher wages.

The last thing taxpayers need is for the health insurance tax to go into effect, even for one year. Lawmakers must make sure this does not happen and repeal, or at the very least delay the Obamacare health insurance tax.

The Honorable Paul Ryan
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McCarthy:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) I write to express ATR’s strong support for using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) recently published rule relating to arbitration agreements.

The CFPB’s arbitration rule would do little in the way of benefiting American consumers, and instead would result in a flood of class-action lawsuits putting more money in the pockets of trial lawyers. The arbitration rule would cost consumers billions and lead to a projected 6,000 class action lawsuits every five years.

According to the CFPB’s own study, average payouts to consumers after litigation was less than $2.00 per person, which is significantly lower that the amount awarded during the arbitration process. The same study found that only 20 percent of class-action lawsuits are approved and among those the average wait time for a settlement was roughly three years. This is compared to the arbitration process where the wait time is an average of only 6.9 months.

I urge you and your colleagues in Congress to support H.J. Res. 111 introduced by Representative Keith Rothfus (R-Penn.), which would use the authority granted under the Congressional Review Act to reverse the CFPB’s arbitration rule.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) this week joined a coaltion of 26 free-market, limited-government, and liberty-oriented groups calling on Congressional lawmakers to use the powers granted under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) recently published rule relating to arbitration agreements.

The CFPB’s arbitration rule would do little in the way of benefiting American consumers, and instead would result in a flood of class-action lawsuits putting more money in the pockets of trial lawyers. The arbitration rule would cost consumers billions and lead to a projected 6,000 class action lawsuits every five years.

According to the CFPB’s own study, average payouts to consumers after litigation was less than $2.00 per person, which is significantly lower that the amount awarded during the arbitration process. The same study found that only 20 percent of class-action lawsuits are approved and among those the average wait time for a settlement was roughly three years. This is compared to the arbitration process where the wait time is an average of only 6.9 months.

We, the following free-market, limited-government, and liberty-oriented organizations, ask you to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse recently published rules promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ending long-held policy allowing for binding arbitration contracts. Failure to reverse this regulation will result in an avalanche of class-action lawsuits that will hurt jobs and do little to benefit consumers.

The CFPB’s arbitration rule has been described as “Christmas in July” for America’s trial lawyers – and rightly so. According to the CFPB’s own finding, the rule will cost consumers billions of dollars and unleash over 6,000 class action lawsuits every five years. This rule is an obstacle to the efforts to right America’s fiscal ship and create jobs and prosperity for the American people.

Class action lawsuits primarily benefit the trial lawyers rather than the plaintiffs they claim to represent. One extreme example regarding the Bank of Boston even resulted in some of the “winning” plaintiffs owing more in legal fees to lawyers, who walked away with millions, than the meager winnings they received. Class-action lawsuits all too often benefit no one but lawyers, and arbitration provides a fair alternative that should not be prohibited by regulatory fiat.

The CFPB's own report provides undermines the case for relying exclusively on class-action lawsuits. Of the minority of cases filed between 2010 and 2013 that were later settled, consumers received on average only $32, while lawyers received $424 million in total fees. This disparity is due in part to the fact that claims are never filed by the vast majority of those in an eligible class, and lawyers receive fees based on inflated award figures that are never paid out.

There are also significant issues with the structure of the CFPB and its overall lack of accountability to elected officials. A United States Court of Appeals has held that “when measured in terms of unilateral power, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire U.S. Government, other than the President. Indeed, within his jurisdiction, the Director of the CFPB can be considered even more powerful than the President.”

As a rehearing of this ruling on the CFPB's constitutionality by the full Circuit is currently underway, and Congress weighs its own various options to rein in the unaccountable agency, CFPB should at the very least be prevented from instituting major new rules that could disrupt large segments of the economy until such issues are resolved. This is a prime opportunity for members of Congress to uphold their oaths to support and defend the Constitution by safeguarding the nation from costly new CFPB regulations.

The Congressional Review Act provides 60 legislative days for Congress to reverse the CFPB's decision. Each day, the clock ticks and the window of opportunity closes. We urge you to work together and reverse this job-killing regulation promulgated by an agency that is unconstitutionally structured.